HL Deb 23 July 1987 vol 488 cc1525-6

2.25 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th July be approved [2nd Report of the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. I hope and trust that this will be non-controversial. The purpose of this draft order is to increase the limit of liability for operators of hovercraft as currently prescribed in the Hovercraft (Civil Liability) Order 1986 in respect of claims made against them arising from the death or personal injury of passengers carried by hovercraft.

The hovercraft liability regime is somewhat different from that for ships. However, the maximum per passenger liability for death or personal injury is derived from the Athens Convention. This draft order seeks to increase the present liability limit to £80,009 in line with the increase introduced on 1st June under the Athens Convention, for ships. In that respect the order therefore restores parity between the two types of transport.

The terms of the Athens Convention have been applied under UK law since 1977 and the convention entered into force internationally on 28th April of this year. The tragic loss of the "Herald of Free Enterprise" on 6th March brought the convention into sharp focus. The Government subsequently announced their decision to avail themselves of the right given in the Athens Convention to increase the limit of death or injury of sea passengers carried by UK carriers to £80,009. As the House is aware, that increase came into effect on 1st June. It is appropriate that this revised limit should be extended to hovercraft to maintain the link with ships. The draft order does no more or less. I commend it to your Lordships.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th July be approved [2nd Report of the Joint Committee].—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the draft order. Perhaps I may also take this opportunity of thanking him for his thoughtfulness in providing a written explanation of what on the face of it is an order which is very difficult to comprehend. With his explanation, and with the benefit of having had time to study the written letter that he was kind enough to send my noble friend Lord Underhill and myself, it has made the order much more intelligible. We are very happy that the Minister has brought it before the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.